Follow-Up Consultations for Cervical Cancer Patients in a Mexican Cancer Center. Comparison with NCCN Guidelines

  • Serrano-Olvera, Alberto (Divison of Clinical Research, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomedicas, UNAM, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia) ;
  • Cetina, Lucely (Divison of Clinical Research, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomedicas, UNAM, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia) ;
  • Coronel, Jaime (Divison of Clinical Research, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomedicas, UNAM, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia) ;
  • Duenas-Gonzalez, Alfonso (Unit of Biomedical Research on Cancer, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomedicas, UNAM, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia)
  • Published : 2014.11.06


Purpose: This study aimed to determine the patterns of follow-up visits for cervix cancer in a national cancer center in Mexico. Materials and Methods: The National Cancer Institute of Mexico is cancer center with 119 beds that mostly cares for an underserved and socially disadvantaged population. The medical records of cases of cervical cancer that had at least one year of clinical follow-up after being in complete response at the end of primary treatment were analyzed. We recorded the numbers of total and yearly follow-up visits and these were compared with the number of follow-up visits recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2013, version 2 for cervical cancer. Results: Between March and June 2007, the medical records of 96 consecutive patients were reviewed. Twenty (21%) of these met inclusion criteria and were selected. In the first year the median number of visits was 11 (4-20). In the ensuing years, $2^{nd}$, $3^{rd}$, $4^{th}$ and $5^{th}$, the number of analyzed patients remaining in follow-up decreased to 17, 14, 13 and 9 respectively. There were 462 follow-up visits to primary treating services (Gynecology Oncology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Oncology) as compared to 220 suggested by the NCCN guidelines ($X^2$ test p<0.0001). There were 150 additional visits to other services. Conclusions: Our results suggest that in our institution there is an overuse of oncological services by cervical cancer patients once treatment is completed.


  1. Beaver K, Luker KA (2005). Follow-up in breast cancer clinics: reassuring for patients rather than detecting recurrence. Psychooncology, 14, 94-101.
  2. Aziz NM (2007). Cancer survivorship research: state of knowledge, challenges and opportunities. Acta Oncol, 46, 417-42.
  3. Clemmens DA, Knafl K, Lev EL, McCorkle R (2008). Cervical cancer: patterns of long-term survival. Oncol Nurs Forum, 35, 897-903.
  4. Elit L, Fyles AW, Devries MC, Oliver TK, Fung-Kee-Fung M, Gynecology cancer disease site group (2009). Follow-up for women after treatment for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol, 114, 528-35.
  5. Han PK, Klabunde CN, Noone AM, et al (2013). Physicians' beliefs about breast cancer surveillance testing are consistent with test overuse. Med Care, 51, 315-23.
  6. Hashemi FA, Akbari EH, Kalaghchi B, Esmati E (2013). Concurrent chemoradiation with weekly gemcitabine and cisplatin for locally advanced cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 5385-9.
  7. Hu Y, Cai ZQ, Su XY (2012). Concurrent weekly cisplatin versus triweekly cisplatin with radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis result. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 4301-4.
  8. Jefford M, Karahalios E, Pollard A, et al (2008). Survivorship issues following treatment completion-results from focus groups with Australian cancer survivors and health professionals. J Cancer Surviv, 2, 20-32.
  9. Morice P, Deyrolle C, Rey A, et al (2004). Value of routine follow-up procedures for patients with stage I/II cervical cancer treated with combined surgery-radiation therapy. Ann Oncol, 15, 218-23.
  10. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM,et al (2011). Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 61, 69-90.
  11. Mabuchi S, Isohashi F, Maruoka S, et al (2012). Post-treatment follow-up procedures in cervical cancer patients previously treated with radiotherapy. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 286, 179-85.
  12. Mathew A, George PS (2009). Trends in incidence and mortality rates of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of cervix--worldwide. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 645-50.
  13. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer Cervix, version 2 (2013). Accessed 17 Jul 2013.
  14. Ness S, Kokal J, Fee-Schroeder K, et al (2013). Concerns across the survivorship trajectory: results from a survey of cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum, 40, 35-42.
  15. Schultz PN, Stava C, Beck ML, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R (2004). Ethnic/racial influences on the physiologic health of cancer survivors. Cancer, 100, 156-64.
  16. Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, et al (2012). Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin, 62, 220-41.
  17. Suprasert P, Manopunya M (2011). Financial burden of gynecologic-cancer survivors associated with attendance in a surveillance program at a tertiary care hospital in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1761-3.
  18. Tan FL, Loh SY, Su TT, Veloo VW, Ng LL (2012). Return to work in multi-ethnic breast cancer survivors--a qualitative inquiry. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 5791-7.
  19. Yip CH, Samiei M, Cazap E, et al (2012). ICCC-4 Working Group, Coordinating care and treatment for cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 23-36.

Cited by

  1. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice about Pap Smear Test among Women Living in Bojnourd, North East of Iran: a Population-Based Study vol.16, pp.5, 2015,
  2. Glucocorticoid receptor in cervical cancer: an immunhistochemical analysis pp.1432-0711, 2018,